Haynes v. Power Facility Evaluation Council
1979 Conn. LEXIS 795, 419 A.2d 342, 177 Conn. 623 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party is not "aggrieved" by and cannot appeal an administrative agency's decision if that decision does not adversely affect their interests. Furthermore, a party cannot use an appeal from a subsequent agency decision to collaterally attack an earlier, final agency decision for which the statutory appeal period has expired.
Facts:
- On December 30, 1975, the Connecticut Light and Power Company (the company) applied to the Power Facility Evaluation Council (the council) for a certificate to construct a new overhead transmission line.
- The proposed construction required widening an existing 100-foot right-of-way by an additional 50 feet, affecting property owned by several individuals, including James E. and Sibyl M. Haynes.
- In April and May of 1976, the Hayneses participated in public hearings as parties of record, testifying in opposition to the company's application.
- On October 26, 1976, the council granted the company's application, issuing a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the project.
- On June 17, 1977, the company applied to the council to amend the certificate, proposing to use different support poles which would reduce the required widening of the right-of-way from 50 feet to 30 feet.
- In July 1977, the Hayneses and other plaintiffs asked to be made parties to the amendment proceeding to offer evidence in favor of the proposed changes, arguing they would result in a lesser environmental impact.
- On August 17, 1977, the council denied the plaintiffs' request for a public hearing but granted the company's application for the amendment.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 5, 1977, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Court of Common Pleas (a trial court) challenging orders of the defendant Power Facility Evaluation Council.
- The defendants, the council and the Connecticut Light and Power Company, filed pleas in abatement, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was untimely and the plaintiffs were not aggrieved.
- The trial court sustained the defendants' pleas in abatement, dismissing the appeal.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, with the council and the company as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party have standing to appeal an administrative agency's decision to amend a prior order when the party is not adversely affected by the amendment, and can such an appeal be used to challenge the original, unappealed order for which the appeal period has expired?
Opinions:
Majority - Bogdanski, J.
No. A party lacks standing to appeal a decision that does not adversely affect them, and such an appeal cannot be used to challenge a separate, prior order for which the appeal period has expired. To have standing to appeal an administrative decision under the statute, a party must be 'aggrieved,' meaning their interests must have been adversely affected by the specific decision being appealed. The council's August 1977 decision to amend the certificate did not harm the plaintiffs; in fact, it reduced the environmental impact on their property, a result they supported. The injury to the plaintiffs' interests, if any, stemmed from the council's original October 1976 decision. The plaintiffs failed to appeal that decision within the statutory time limit, rendering it final and no longer subject to judicial review. The court rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to 'piggyback' a challenge to the final 1976 decision onto their appeal of the 1977 amendment, citing the principle that failure to timely appeal renders a decision final. Allowing such a maneuver would undermine the finality of administrative decisions and the statutory scheme, which treats original applications and amendments as separate proceedings.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict requirements for standing in administrative law, specifically the necessity of demonstrating aggrievement from the specific order being appealed. It establishes a strong precedent against using appeals of subsequent, minor decisions as a vehicle to challenge earlier, substantive decisions for which the appeal deadline has passed. The decision emphasizes the principle of finality in administrative proceedings, ensuring that once the time for appeal has expired, an agency's decision is settled and cannot be collaterally attacked. This holding forces potential litigants to be diligent and timely in challenging adverse agency actions, rather than waiting for a later opportunity to reopen a closed matter.
